Steffen Mueller wrote: > Primary maintainer status is mostly about being able to >allow others to upload new versions.
That's not a significant concern for me. That's the significance that the PAUSE permission system ascribes to primary maintainership, but I'm really interested in loosening the socially-enforced constraint that mst laid down when granting me co-maint: | Please *only* use this co-maint access for bug fixes for 5.12 and |any further bug fixes that result from that for the moment; my motivation |is not a fast takeover but merely a fixed version on CPAN (I cite Adam |Kennedy's treatment of Template as precedent for this). Under the "bug fixes for 5.12 and any further bug fixes that result from that" rubric, I've only updated the module to handle new Perl versions. I'd like to have the authority to fix bugs not related to core version (the RT queue has a few), to substantially refactor, to reimplement the parsing side using new core facilities (while retaining the old implementation for compatibility to older Perl versions), to improve documentation, and so on. Should I, at this stage, have the full authority that a primary maintainer normally has? Apparently not, if you're willing to transfer primary maintainership back to xmath on his request. That's OK. So what should be the extent of my limited authority regarding the module? -zefram
